Medical Parole-related Petitions in U.S. Courts: Support for Reforming Compassionate Release

Cooper, Sarah Lucy and Bernard, Cory (2020) Medical Parole-related Petitions in U.S. Courts: Support for Reforming Compassionate Release. Creighton Law Review. ISSN 2168-9261 (In Press)

[img] Text
MEDICAL PAROLE-RELATED PETITIONS IN U.S. COURTS- SUPPORT FOR REFORMING COMPASSIONATE RELEASE.pdf - Accepted Version
Restricted to Repository staff only

Download (380kB) | Request a copy

Abstract

Common across U.S. justice systems, compassionate release procedures typically allow prisoners to seek early release because of serious terminal, non-terminal, and/or age-related health issues. Across U.S. states, medical parole emerges as the most common method of compassionate release. Studies have identified various limitations in compassionate release practices, including the absence of both comprehensive reporting and tracking systems, and internal appeals processes. These absences result in limited knowledge about what issues petitioners and review authorities perceive as unfair about compassionate release, which frustrates evaluation of existing practices and the implementation of evidence-informed reform. One way to address this dearth of knowledge is to examine medical parole-related petitions in U.S. courts. This paper does just that. Part I summarizes the interplays of prisoner health(care), compassionate release, and the parole system. Part II outlines the rationale and design of our study, which sought to investigate: (1) what issues do petitioners raise in medical parole-related petitions to U.S. courts? (2) How do courts resolve such petitions? (3) Do the approaches of petitioners and courts highlight existing concerns about compassionate release? Part III reports our findings. In sum, case law reveals that petitioners have raised issues concerning frustrated access to the medical parole process; the denial of medical parole; irregularities in medical parole processes; improper application of eligibility and exclusion criteria; and the provision of inadequate medical care in prison. Courts generally dismiss appeals, relying on the high standards of proof required to both prove eligibility and/or improper parole-board decision-making; the discretionary nature of parole; standards of review that are highly deferential to parole authorities; and a lack of properly legally postured claims. Case law also reveals a propensity for prisoners to act pro se. Overall, case law can be mapped to four thematic areas where concerns about compassionate release practices already exist, namely (1) eligibility and exclusions; (2) releasing authorities; (3) processes; and (4) support for petitioners. The authors conclude that these findings further call for the reform of compassionate release to better serve both the interests of wider society and the United States’ large, ageing, and medically comprised prison population.

Item Type: Article
Date: 2 June 2020
Subjects: M100 Law by area
M200 Law by Topic
Divisions: Faculty of Business, Law and Social Sciences > School of Law
REF UoA Output Collections > REF2021 UoA18: Law
Depositing User: Sarah Cooper
Date Deposited: 04 Jun 2020 09:57
Last Modified: 09 Jul 2020 08:43
URI: http://www.open-access.bcu.ac.uk/id/eprint/9299

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Research

In this section...